LEWISTON — Lawyers representing a dozen Androscoggin County municipalities and the county commissioners in the dispute over who has the power to approve the county’s budget got personal this week, following the Sun Journal’s coverage of an informational meeting in Turner on the county charter amendment.
Lewiston attorney Peter Brann, who represents the cities, strongly criticized the county’s spending to defend itself and told the Sun Journal, “Every time we offer an olive branch, the county tries to break it in half and stab us with it.”
On Tuesday, Androscoggin County Commissioner Sally Christner was among a number of public officials who attended a selectmen meeting in Turner to talk about the charter amendment. At some point during the discussion of the pending lawsuit between the county and Androscoggin cities, Christner told those at the meeting that, to her knowledge, none of the county commissioners received an invitation to mediate their dispute.
Brann said that wasn’t true.
Ron Lebel, one of three attorneys from Skelton, Taintor & Abbott, who are representing the county, said any offer Brann made to sit down was “grossly unreasonable” because he made it just before the Fourth of July, and vacation schedules meant key people were not able to meet.
In July, Androscoggin cities filed suit against county commissioners, contending they had overstepped their powers in approving the county budget in 2014, voting in higher salaries and benefits for themselves than what was approved by the Budget Committee.
On Tuesday, voters in Androscoggin County will go to the polls to consider an amendment to the charter that would expressly ban any increase in commissioners’ salaries or benefits “without the approval of a majority plus one vote of the full Budget Committee.”
On Wednesday, after reading the Sun Journal’s report of the Turner meeting, Brann wrote a personal letter to Lebel contesting Christner’s statement: “The municipalities continue to be willing to meet or mediate our differences in this matter,” Brann wrote.
In his letter, Brann noted that he first contacted the commissioners’ attorneys on July 1 “outlining our concerns about the county’s budget process and the commissioners’ salaries and benefits.” In making that contact, Brann said, “we offered to meet to try to resolve this issue. Your partner, Bryan Dench, declined.”
The cities filed suit 20 days later, and, Brann wrote, “We again offered to meet to try to resolve this issue. … Your partner, Bryan Dench, declined.”
Challenging Lebel, Brann wrote, “I assume that these offers to meet were transmitted to each of the commissioners, including Commissioner Christner.” And, he wrote, “lest there by any doubt, we continue to be willing to meet to try to resolve our differences,” even willing to enter formal mediation if needed, although “as we have said from the outset, we would prefer to resolve this matter amicably.”
Lebel shot a letter back to Brann on Thursday.
“I have your letter of October 27, 2015, and hasten to respond,” Lebel wrote, to correct “factual allegations” contained in Brann’s letter.
Lebel set forth a detailed timeline of when his firm first heard from Brann on July 2, including Brann’s request to meet by July 10 to “resolve this matter, or make sufficient progress to believe that they can resolve this matter” before filing suit.
In his note to Brann, Lebel said, “Such a deadline was grossly unreasonable in light of the intervening Fourth of July weekend and the necessity to convene a meeting of the commissioners to even consider such a demand.”
Lebel also noted that Dench replied to Brann on July 3, acknowledging the July 2 letter and noting that he would be out of town on vacation until July 13. Dench wrote, “I will not be able to review (Brann’s letter) with care or take any action on it before that week at the soonest.”
In his letter to Brann, Lebel details — in 12 numbered paragraphs — the emails exchanged between Brann and Dench regarding Dench’s request to set up a meeting during the week of July 27, and an offer by Brann to extend his deadline for an initial meeting from July 10 to July 20, but not beyond that.
The parties never set a date.
Lebel noted that, on Monday, July 20, Dench received an email from Brann “indicating the following: ‘We are willing to meet with you and Beth Bell next week to discuss resolving this matter, and I’ll get back to you with some dates and times that work. Meanwhile, however, we are planning to file the complaint this week.”
The complaint was filed the following day.
That filing “chilled any possibility of an amicable resolution,” Lebel said, arguing that the commissioners had been willing to meet with the cities but, he wrote Brann, “you declined to do that and instead ran to the courthouse and filed suit. The rest is history.”
On Thursday, Brann called Lebel’s account “revisionist history.”
In an email to the Sun Journal, Brann wrote, “The county refused every time we’ve offered to meet to discuss this matter. And the bottom line is that we offered again, and they simply offered additional excuses not to meet or mediate.”
Brann said, “the municipalities would like nothing more than to resolve this matter, especially since they are effectively paying for the county’s aggressive litigation tactics by underwriting the lion’s share of the county’s budget.”
The cities have spent $15,000 so far in pursuing their claim, and estimate it will cost at least another $20,000 to resolve.
The county has spent more than $44,000.
On Wednesday, commissioners learned the Maine County Commissioners Association Risk Pool agreed to defend commissioners at its own expense as the suit moves forward.
Lebel declined comment Thursday, beyond what was contained in his letter.
Disclaimer: The Sun Journal is a client of Skelton, Taintor & Abbott.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
